Interesting hypothetical

I can't remember the circumstances under which I had this thought, but at some point in the last year or so, I posed myself this question: If I could have the privilege to own any gun I wanted, including any NFA firearm, but everyone else had t put up with New Jersey-style restrictions on gun ownership, would I be interested? I'm happy to say that my reaction was an instant and visceral, "Hell, no!"

My first thought was for the single mother living in a bad neighborhood who wouldn't have access to reasonable means of self-defense. (And I have to admit to having a streak of bleeding heart in me, but fortunately I've wrapped it up in lots of libertarian philosophy.) I wouldn't want to have this right that others couldn't also have.

Thinking about it further, I realized the rational basis for my rejection of the scenario: Privileges are just that, and they can be taken away as easily as they are given. Rights are inherent (or inalienable, if you will), thus they can't be taken away. (Although that's certainly more ideal than practical.) The only way to guarantee my ability to have a gun is to guarantee that gun ownership is viewed as a right.

And as I was thinking about this tonight, the converse occurred to me: If I could guarantee that everyone else could have reasonable access to guns (Texas reasonable, not New Jersey reasonable), would I be willing to forego that right for myself? Hmm. While it might be nice to think that I'd be that altruistic given the opportunity, I don't know that I'm that good. It would really depend on the alternative -- whether it were the status quo or the other extreme.

But even still,